Why has nobody brought up one of the biggest benefits of AA? The simple fact that it provides a substantial amount of information regarding the intelligence of its detractors? Do you know how hard it can be to figure out when a seemingly decently (but not great) qualified individual is really an idiot under the resume? Bam, we get threads like this. Think of the efficiency gains, people.

I'm not sure why your glib non-answering of any substantiative arguments of the opposing position would suggest that people holding the opposing position are somehow intellectually defective.

If those opposing AA in this thread aren't intellectually defective, then they are purposely intellectually dishonest.

An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.

An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.

Wow, you must be the only white person who opposes AA, thinks he/she is unique for it, and gets all snippy when someone dares challenge your intelligence. You should write about this for your personal statement. Beautiful snowflake and all.

An unbounded conclusion like that one must have substantial proof behind it. Since I believe that the burden of proof is on the accuser, please provide it.

Wow, you must be the only white person who opposes AA, thinks he/she is unique for it, and gets all snippy when someone dares challenge your intelligence. You should write about this for your personal statement. Beautiful snowflake and all.

Actually, I'm Chinese. And my opposition to AA stems from reading arguments put forth by Tom Sowell, who is black.

Are you sure you're cut out to be a lawyer? Your characterization of me is based on no facts that you can prove. Maybe you should run for Congress. That's where most liars and spin-doctors end up. I think you'd feel right at home.

those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds. the courts draw a distinction. (i'm not sure why, but they do.)

Okay, NOW we're getting into a juicy argument

Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.

wait, so you're calling him a liar and a spin-doctor and then questioning his qualifications to be a lawyer? does that make any sense to you?

Well, if the guy immediately jumps to the conclusion that I'm white and I feel special for voicing my opposition to AA, when I'm none of the above, then it seems to me that he's willing to play hard and fast with the facts when he wants to pander to stereotype.

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.

well let's be honest for a second: the whole public/private distinction is a bit of a sham that the courts put in place to have some limit on the scope of the 14th amendment. public universities are just more obviously "public institutions" than private ones, and so it's convenient to put them on one side of the line.

and the government can condition funds on whatever they want. but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional. the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).

and like i said, public-private line is a sham.

I disagree, private-public line is a pretty clear one. Public Universities are state entities. They are funded by the states, the employees are hired by the state, their policies are a reflection of state standards. There is a great deal of autonomy in public universities, but they are basically a state sponsored institution. Private institutions by contrast are run by private entities. Since States have to follow the Constitution (as we know from 3rd grade Civics), it follows pretty clearly that they have to follow whatever the high court or their state court says.

I don't know that I disagree with your overall position on the thread, but the public-private distinction isn't a sham.

those are public universities, not private ones receiving public funds. the courts draw a distinction. (i'm not sure why, but they do.)

Okay, NOW we're getting into a juicy argument

Do you think the 14th amendment should apply to public universities?

I've also heard that the feds often condition the eligibility of public funds by private institutions on those institutions conforming to federal antidiscrimination laws. Do you know anything about this topic? (I'm pretty ignorant about it, which is why I'm asking). Because if this is true, then it seems to me that those antidiscrimination laws should also prevent the application of affirmative action policies.

BTW, I'm pretty sure my alma mater, Cornell, had a few colleges within it which were considered public, so not all "private" universities are fully private.

What arguments? You've given none. What has sowell said to persuade you?

I strongly suspect you won't be a lawyer at all the way you think. I mean, you bluster in here like you have something interesting to say as though this debate hasn't been hashed out a million times and you don't realize when people are calling you out. The fact that you consider yourself so brilliant that you insist that the burden of proof is on everyone else to disprove you still makes me laugh.

and the government can condition funds on whatever they want. but that doesn't make AA unconstitutional. the original challenge that i presented to blondie was to substantiate her claim that AA was unconstitutional and not merely a violation of antidiscrimination statutes (assuming that it is).

That seems like a pretty fair critique. I'm pretty ignorant of the case law applicable to these situations, but based on a cursory glance I'm not sure how affirmative action in public universities violate the "equal protection" clause, since, at least to me, AA seems like a politically-enforced privilege, not a protection of the law.